Court No. - 49
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 9659 of 2018 Applicant :- Rajeev Gupta Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Anr Counsel for Applicant :- Rajesh Kumar Sachan,Sandhya Sachan Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Ravindra Kumar
Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant; Mr. Ravindra Kumar learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 and; learned A.G.A. for the State.
2. The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed to quash the charge sheet dated 18.4.2012 as well as the entire proceedings of Case No. 15258/2012 New No.1997 of 2014 (State Vs. Rajeev Gupta), arising out of Case Crime No.544 of 2011, under Section 498-A, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C., Police Station Chakeri, District- Kanpur Nagar, pending in the court of Metropolitan Magistrate IInd Kanpur Nagar.
3. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the present dispute arises out of matrimonial discord between the applicant and the opposite party no. 2. The present criminal case had been lodged against the applicant but that neither there was any criminal intent on the part of any party nor any criminal offence had actually occurred.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that:-
(i) the only dispute between the parties were purely civil and private in nature, arising out of matrimonial discord between the parties;
(ii) there never was any criminal intent on part of the applicant/s nor any criminal offence as alleged had ever occurred;
(iv) there is no injury caused to any party and wholly exaggerated allegations had been made in the heat of the moment owing to estranged relationship and bruised egos;
(v) at present, the parties have resolved their differences such that the parties are living together in matrimony;
(vi) therefore, in the changed circumstance, the opposite party no. 2 does not wish to press charges against the present applicant.
In fact, it is submitted that if the criminal prosecution is allowed to proceed it may create further complication in the otherwise normal relationship that is arising between the hitherto estranged couple and their families;
5. Sri Ravindra Kumar, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 does not dispute the correctness of the submission made by learned counsel for the applicants. In fact, paragraph nos. 5 to 7 of the affidavit reads as under :
"5. That in the present case during the pendency of trial before the learned court below, both husband and wife namely Rajeev Gupta and Smt. Rubi Gupta have entered into a compromise and have began to live together as husband and wife in the same house along with their minor child by entering into a written compromise dated 20.2.2018 which is filed before the learned court of Metropolitan Magistrate IInd Kanpur Nagar which has been taken up on record by the learned court below.
6. That the Hon'ble Court may be pleased to quash the impugned charge sheet dated 18.4.2012 in terms of compromise entered between husband and wife.
7. That in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, it is expedient in the interest of justice that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to take the affidavit on record for kind perusal of the Hon'ble Court."
6. In view of the fact that the dispute appears to be purely of a personal nature being matrimonial discord that has been mutually settled between the parties, to their entire satisfaction, no useful purpose would be served in allowing the prosecution to continue any longer.
7. Thus, in view of the well settled principles of law as laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2003(4) SCC 675 (B.S. Joshi Vs. State of Haryana) as well as the Judgment of the Apex Court reported in J.T., 2008(9) SC 192 (Nikhil Merchant Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another), the proceedings of the aforesaid case is hereby set aside.
8. The present application is accordingly allowed.
Order Date :- 24.9.2018 Meenu